Article

Editorial: iLounge On 2012’s iPods, iPhone 5 + Lightning

By Jeremy Horwitz ● Thursday, September 13, 2012

Plenty of digital ink has already been spilled following yesterday’s debut of the iPhone 5, two new iPod models, and Apple’s new Lightning connector—amazingly, “reviews” of the new devices are already appearing online after 15-minute hands-on sessions. Perhaps by design, so many small new things were announced during and after the event that it was hard to take a step back and consider the bigger picture.

So that’s what we’re doing here. While only one new iPhone was announced yesterday, the entire iPhone lineup was altered, and the iPod family similarly went though some major shifts. Apple’s press events are designed to focus solely on the positives of its new products, but the reality is always more complex, and deserves to be explored. This editorial provides some insights into what went right and wrong yesterday, as well as how the changes will play out over the next several months.

The iPhone and iPod Families. Despite some complaints that the announcements were overly predictable, Apple’s event was certainly a net positive for the company—particularly for the iPhone family. The highest-end iPhone took several moderate but positive steps forward in technology at last year’s prices, while the now low-end iPhone 4 is about to further expand the number of potential Apple customers: it is the first “free” iPhone available in a CDMA version, say nothing of the first “free” Apple device with a Retina display. Moreover, for only $100 up front, there’s now an extremely capable 16GB iPhone 4S as another alternative. Expect the iPhone lineup, as a whole, to continue growing in popularity at a brisk rate.

On the other hand, the iPod family seems more confused than ever, despite having individual products that would have been dream releases several years ago. Yes, Apple has another seemingly simple pricing matrix with $50 price steps separating almost all of the models and versions. For $49, there’s a familiar iPod shuffle with new colors. For $149, there’s a new iPod nano in the same colors. Then there are iPod touches starting at $199, and somehow still an iPod classic at $249.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Once again, Apple will be actively selling two different iPod touch generations, this time across four different models and four different price points. The iPod nano became more expensive while making another major form factor change, and the latest batch of colors Apple has selected for the iPod touch, nano, and shuffle are oddly faded. Everyone knows that the iPod product line has been in clear and somewhat serious decline; it’s unlikely that these new models will dramatically reverse that trend.

The new iPhone 5. It was almost entirely predictable. Hugely iterative. A little weird-looking at first. And yet the iPhone 5 was unquestionably the most desirable new device Apple demonstrated at the event.

Having sold over 244 million iPhones, Apple has at least 100 million current iPhone users, and most have little desire to switch to Android or another platform. Consequently, Apple has very little risk in releasing predictable upgrades, so long as they’re reliable, respectable steps up from prior versions, and marketed correctly. That’s pretty much what the official iPhone 5 announcement entailed—the bigger screen, LTE support, faster processor, and various software-assisted under-the-hood improvements will be more than enough to satisfy users of prior iPhones. The biggest question is whether Apple has done anything here that will win the next generation of high-end iPhone customers; the answer is “probably not.”

There’s only one obvious turn-off for past customers with the iPhone 5, and that’s the Lightning Connector, discussed further below. Apple can try to spin the Lightning Connector any way it wants, but the reality is that iPhone 5 will be the first major Apple device in years that can’t connect to the thousands of docking accessories previously released for iPods, iPhones, and iPads—or even the simple yet $19 USB cables Apple’s been selling for ages. If there’s no Lightning Adapter in the iPhone 5 package, users will need to wait until October to find out which of their past accessories actually work with the phone—and whether they work fully, or are crippled. Apple is betting that its customers won’t care. Perhaps it’s right.

The seventh-generation iPod nano. On the surface, the new iPod nano sounds like a nano fan’s dream—after a two-year experiment with an iPod shuffle-sized, clip-on body, Apple switched the nano back to a more familiar form factor, halfway between a second-generation iPod nano and an iPod touch. The $149 price point’s a jump from the prior $129 entry level, but it’s still more affordable than the least expensive iPod touch, and it’s a lot smaller, too, while packing Bluetooth for wireless audio purposes. In other words, the nano still has a purpose in Apple’s lineup—it’s a tiny, screened media player. With a bunch of color options.

But does the device really make sense any more? That’s a lot harder to say than we’d initially expected. When the nano shrunk to a size that could be worn on a wrist, adding Bluetooth wireless support would have been ideal for both audio streaming and the prospect of two-way communication with an iPhone or iPad for messaging. Yet as a standalone, low-capacity, app- and game-less media player in an increasingly iPhone- and iPad-dominated world, the nano seems like a poor investment by comparison with the $199 iPod touch. We’re not closed-minded to the possibility that it will grow on us, or become popular solely because it’s mid-priced, but the new nano strikes us as a big question mark right now.

The fifth-generation iPod touch. The story’s different with the new iPod touch, a device that conceptually makes a ton of sense, but just seems to have been priced wrong. Like the new nano, all of the new touch’s concepts seem to make sense when you see them: Apple’s finally switching away from scratchable polished metal backs, offering multiple colors, and giving the iPod touch acceptable front and rear cameras. Moreover, it’s growing a bigger screen, AirPlay Mirroring, and better 3-D graphics for gaming. Yes, it’s a step behind the iPhone 5 in many ways, but not horrendously so—effectively a thinner iPhone 4S.

But if you want the new iPod touch, you’ll need to shell out at least $299, since Apple’s keeping its two-year-old predecessor around as an entry-level model. Those keeping track of iPod touch alternatives will note that $299 is $100 more than the current crop of 7-inch tablets from Apple’s competitors, and that the new model is arriving at a price point that Apple has previously identified as less than mainstream for its pocket media players. There are also the design oddities to consider: the faded metal colors, the not-quite-flush rear camera lens, the white bezels on the units with colored backs, and the extremely unusual “loop” wrist strap button. This doesn’t seem like a slam dunk design for Apple, and in fact goes in a few directions that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. Perhaps that’s not a bad thing.

Lightning Connector. We’re not going to make light of its name, or offer a knee-jerk, “sky is falling” reaction to Apple’s decision to replace its ubiquitous 30-pin connector with something new. To be totally fair, Apple has kept the “iPod Connector” around for nine years, a lot longer than expected, and it’s absolutely no shock that it’s putting something smaller in new devices. The problem with Lightning isn’t that it exists, but rather what Apple did and didn’t do with it.

By choosing the “Lightning” name, Apple is implying that the new connector offers greater speed, but it’s apparently not faster—Apple still lists the cables as supporting the same USB 2.0 standard followed by older devices. So what are Lightning’s advantages? It’s smaller and “all digital,” with the promise of greater durability. On the other hand, it apparently loses the ability to transmit analog audio or video signals via the bottom port. This may well break compatibility with hundreds of docking speakers and accessories with video-out capabilities, while requiring more expensive replacements, each with Apple’s seal of approval and Apple-required parts. Apple’s grip on the accessory market, and your wallet, is about to tighten considerably.

Apple won’t sell Lightning Adapters until October, so early iPhone 5 adopters won’t know for sure whether their accessories work properly with the new phone. And the Adapter prices are much higher than expected—$29 each—with new Lightning-specific third-party accessories not expected until later this year, possibly even early 2013. Lightning isn’t a loser of a connector, and Apple has promised on the record that it will be used in devices for years to come, but it’s hard to suggest that it offers any real advantage to users.

What are your thoughts on the iPhone 5, new iPods, and Lightning Connector? We look forward to reading them in the comments section below.

Comments

1

The products are a little ho-hum and will add to the speculation that Apple is diminished by the loss of Steve Jobs.

The new iPhone is again brilliant, but mainly “under the hood,” and is overall too evolutionary… almost an iPhone 4S-S. The iPod Touch just doesn’t make sense at all any more, and should have advanced to the rumored “iPad Mini.” The iPod Nano is a little too Zune-esque in its physical form factor, and the white insert looks cheap. The Classic should’ve received Toshiba’s new(-ish) 220 (?) GB drive [previously reported by iLounge], received some form-factor and UI tweaks, and sold for one more year as the iPod “final edition.”

The updated connector merits a definite “at last” other than, as stated by iLounge, the lacking USB 3.0 support and odd name choice.

Posted by Mollari 2261 in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM (CDT)

1

The nano makes a lot of sense for people like my 82 year old mom who wants a small device to listen to music at the gym and on long car rides with my dad. She’ll use the pedometer on her walks. She might even be able to show people photos of their trips to South America, New Zealand and Africa.

As for the Lightning connector, I haven’t seen anyone make a Queen reference yet (Thunderbolt & Lightning-very very frightening). And it sucks. Anything but a micro USB is just plain mean. Even my Logitech all-in-one remote uses a micro USB for charging and syncing.

Posted by DerGolem in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM (CDT)

1

I guess my first question would be: where are these people who keep begging Apple to make their devices thinner and lighter? An iPhone the size of the Samsung Galaxy Note or a 7” iPad Mini would have been worthy of the months of painful hype and speculation. Instead we got a multi-colored iPod Touch that looks a little cheap and gimmicky. The Nano (like the Classic) is nothing more than a placeholder to compete against Sandisk, etc. As for the Lightning connector, I’d have much preferred some sort of Magsafe connector option for charging, since that’s essentially all you’ll be able to do with Lightning until you upgrade to an accessory that accepts digital audio-in.

Posted by PaulA in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 13, 2012 at 8:43 PM (CDT)

1

Thank you, Mr. Horwitz, for this editorial! I am not ashamed to admit that I got all caught up in the whole iPhone 5 (and iPod touch, and iPod nano, ...) media event moment. But, after having read this short piece, am now thinking along the lines of, “Hmmm… we’ll see.”

Posted by Jim in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 14, 2012 at 2:15 PM (CDT)

1

I think it’s getting harder and harder for Apple and other companies to really innovate in the spaces of cell phones and MP3 players. Both are fairly mature markets – the iPod especially – and to expect something completely whiz-bang each year is unrealistic.

That being said, the iPhone 5 is a great evolution, based on what’s been reported so far. And I think that’s really what people should expect from here on out – that the iPhone will have its annual evolution, not revolution. Sometimes that evolution will take a big step like this week. Next year, it’s probably safe to assume it will be a smaller evolution with an iPhone 5S.

As for the new “Lightning” connector, I find it a poor choice of names as it does imply that it’s faster than what’s currently being used. I don’t have a problem with Apple changing the connector. It will certainly be painful for anyone who’s bought into Apple’s ecosystem, but I like the idea of a smaller, more durable connector for my iPhone.

Although making the Lightning Connector work with Thunderbolt seems to be logial choice on the surface, the expense and lack of adoption precludes that. But since all of Apple’s new laptops are equipped with USB 3.0, as well as most new Windows computers shipping today, it’s strange that the new connector is only 2.0.

One last point about the Lightning Connector – I hope that Apple, or some other enterprising company like Belkin or Griffin, creates a some kind of Lightning adapter for both Apple’s Universal Dock and the multitude of dock-based clock radios, speaker systems, and other devices out there.

I do agree that the iPod line has grown a bit confusing. Why keep around the 2010 iPod touch? I think it’s just too confusing. I would have jettisoned that one and kept around the older nano to give folks the opportunity to pick their form factor. I think there’s still a market for the nano and shuffle with the gym crowd and people who don’t want iPhones and touches.

And the classic still lives. At the very least I would have given it a storage bump. Though it’s probably not worth Apple’s effort to redesign and retool, updating the dock connector and adding FM radio would be nice too.

The area where we can expect Apple to do some really interesting things are in spaces where the experience is just bad. TV is Apple’s next great frontier, whether it comes as an updated Apple TV or, as some have speculated, a television made by Apple. Other places Apple might do something really amazing include photography and automotive entertainment.

Posted by cxc273 in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 14, 2012 at 2:51 PM (CDT)

1

I read over at Macworld that the new Lightning Adaptors contain a DAC chip to convert the digital audio output to analog. If true, that would allow it to work with all those accessories that require an analog audio stream. Also, it would help explain the $29 price tag.

On the plus side, for those of us who own higher-end DAC or DAC/heaphone amp units, the longed-for true digital out for audio may at last become a reality.

Posted by Ed Berggren in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM (CDT)

1

Also, the new Nano has a smaller headphone jack.

Posted by Ryan Becerra in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM (CDT)

1

I agree the dock connector had to change—the 30 pin connector was fragile, awkward and nonstandard.

That being said, I think Apple could have bought an awful lot of good will by including at least one 30 pin adapter in the phone box and subsidizing the price of Lightning-USB cables and 30 pin adapters, either by making them “on sale through Christmas” or just flat out eating a lot of the margin I know they’re making on them.

My guess is that by cutting their margin substantially so that they *seemed* inexpensive they would have made it up in volume easily, if not made it just slightly less profitable than everything else they do when people stocked up on “on sale” adapters.

The pricing on these items seems inflated and there’s a sense that Apple is really gouging for items that many people require to integrate their devices into their lives.

Posted by Shawn Barnhart in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM (CDT)

1

Yawn.

The Nano still makes sense for a lot of people who just want music in a small format but for the bump in price. The Classic is still pretty much the best music device available since it’s the only one that lets most people store all or substantially all of their music. I’m afraid mine will die and it won’t be available anymore. If they went to an SSD I might buy one as an extra or backup. Really. The click-wheel just works better for a music device.

IPhone 5? Yawn. It explains why Apple had to sue Samsung. It’s not the only choice anymore. Yawn.

Posted by Dave Tang in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 20, 2012 at 1:41 AM (CDT)

1

Jonathan Ives is nearly canonized for his industrial design and while he has help design some product icons over the last 15 years, I think he is far from perfect… what is his affection for pastels for one? all the new muted colours(brit spelling i know) on the new touch and nano… no! why can’t we get a bold vibrant cherry red, cobalt blue, emerald green, lamborghini yellow, grape purple! i know most as in 99.9% would prefer over fugly pastels…

Posted by Aaron in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 24, 2012 at 1:58 PM (CDT)

1

There are many of us who indeed still value a stand alone MP3 player who do NOT want their music integrated into a smart phone. For those of us who are chained to such devices as a part of our work lives, it is refreshing to do without in our personal lives and still listen to our music.

So do not generalize.

My big beef is this new so called “lightning” connector and Apples further attempts to gouge the public. Let’s not deify the late Steve Jobs—he was a great innovator and his company has done much good. But they are a near monopoly raking in titantic profits.

Posted by Martin L in East Amherst, NY, USA on October 8, 2012 at 3:51 PM (CDT)